“Temple Prasad Key Element Of Worship”: Madras High Court Asks HR&CE Dept To Consider Preparing Prasadam On Its Own Without Commercialising

Justice B Pugalendhi also remarked that the Prasadam is a blessing of the deity and it is the duty of the temple administration to ensure the quality of the Prasadam provided in the temple. The court thus wondered how the department would ensure the quality of the Prasadam when its production and supply were leased out to private individuals.

“Considering the significance of the temple prasadam and the experience gained by the Department from Alagar Temple and Meenakshi Amman Tmeple, the first respondent / Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, shall look into this issue of Prasadam, in the light of the observations made supra and find out the possibility of preparing and distributing prasadam to the devotees by the department itself in the interest of the public, temple and without commercializing the same,” the court ordered.

The court was hearing a petition filed by CS Vaidyanathan challenging the e-auction and e-tender notification inviting tenders to obtain license for running Prasada Stall in Srirangam Arulmigu Aranganathaswamy Temple.

The petitioner informed the court that as per the conditions in the tender, the temple prasadam had to be prepared in a particular custom and the person must have had previous experience of preparing Prasadam in a Vaishnava temple for 10 years. The conditions also prevented persons who have filed lawsuits against the temple from participating in the tender.

The petitioner argued that he had been running Prasadam stalls in other temples for the past 10 years but since he did not belong to the Vaishnava Sect, he was unable to participate in the tender. He submitted that running a prasadam stall was not an integral part of the religion and had a secular character. It was also submitted that preparing and selling the items in the Prasada stalls, which was not offered to the deity, would not come within the ambit of religious practice but was a commercial activity.

The Executive Officer of the temple however argued that the temple was a Vaishnavist temple and the time-honoured customs had to be followed. It was thus argued that the conditions were not discriminatory. He also informed the court that the practice of running the Prasada stalls in other temples was different from the present temple.

The officer also contended that the preparation of prasadam and pr4esenting the same to the deity are religious practices and forms a part and parcel of the religion. He argued that the conditions were imposed with a view to avoid commercialisation and to protect the temple and its interests.

Noting that temple was not a place for commercial activities, the court examined the income generated by leasing out the Prasadam stalls to private individuals and the income generated when the Prasadam is prepared and provided by the temple itself. The court noted that temples could generate higher income through Prasadam stalls by preparing it in the temple itself.

The court also noted that by preparing the Prasadam in the temples, the department could also ensure the quality of the Prasadam, which it was duty-bound to do. The court noted that recently, the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Department had launched the booking of temple prasadam in collaboration with the Department of Posts. The court thus suggested that the department could work out a possibility of preparing prasadam on their own.

Regarding the present case, the court noted that every temple had its unique customs and traditions which had to ve recognised and respected by the temple administration. The court thus found not merits in the petition and noting that the GST registration of the petitioner had also expired, the court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Sr.Counsel for Mr.S.Krishnakumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader, Mr.M.Saravanan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Case Title: CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department

Case No: WP(MD)No.22772 of 2023